... What the fascination with the Basques is I don't know nor can I fathom.Why the heck do they always seem to me made the measure of all things R1b1b2? Good grief! One would think they were the majority population of Europe rather than a tiny, rather odd minority....

Agreed, the Basques are not even the most numerous R-M269 people in Iberia. I think we should spend more time on who the Celtiberians were and what clades they are, as well as the Galicians and the Catalonians. If some group from Iberia is connected to Ireland (per the Milesian legend,) it would most likely be the Galicians, I think. What clades are included in Galician populations? Does anyone know?

However, the problem is that there were only 19 men tested in Galicia5,3% being E3* (paleolithic)10,5% being E-M81 (Berber)10,5% being E-M123 (Neolithic?)5,3% being E-M78 (Neolithic farmer)5,3% being J1 (supposedly Arabic origin)63,1% R1b: downstream M153 and M167 markers were tested, but not found among them

A better picture can emerge from Northern Portuguese (109 men), Leon (60 men) and Cantabrian (70 men) sample, as these regions also belong to the Celtiberian area:R-M153 was found 1,4% in Cantabria and 0% elsewhere (Basque: 15,6%)R-M167 was found 8,6% in Cantabria, 3,3% in Leon and 2,8% in N Portugal (Basque: 11,1%, Catalan 31% - in a 16-men sample)R1b (xM153,M167) was 48,4% in Cantabria, 58,2% in Leon and 50,5% in N Portugal (Basque: 62,3%, 258 Andalusian: 52,7%).

Therefore, it is not true that the Celtiberian areas have the highest M269 frequency. However, we cant be sure about the subgroups. We can expect higher frequency of L-21 and U-152 in the Celtiberian areas.The Irish Milesian theory can probably be justified if there are M-167 people in Ireland, as this is an Iberian marker. I dont know if there are any. Have you any infos?

Therefore, it is not true that the Celtiberian areas have the highest M269 frequency. However, we cant be sure about the subgroups. We can expect higher frequency of L-21 and U-152 in the Celtiberian areas.The Irish Milesian theory can probably be justified if there are M-167 people in Ireland, as this is an Iberian marker. I dont know if there are any. Have you any infos?

Some are looking at R-P312* as a genetic connection between Ireland and Iberia. I am cautious about that though, as R-P312* isn't really a subclade in and of itself, but a cluster of people underneath R-P312 for whom no downstream SNP's have yet been discovered.

Are there off-modal based clusters under R-P312* that cross Ireland and Iberia?

If R1b1b2 was not Basque, then who would? I suppose we have only the I2-M26 people, but it is unlikely that they retained their language while around 85% of their male population was replaced by R1b1b2 folks.

I can't decide...

It's a puzzle, for sure. For all we know, the Y-haplotype of the original Basques is now completely extinct, having been completely replaced by R-M269, R-P312, etc.

But then we don't even truly know where the Basque language came from in the first place. Maybe it was a comparatively recent local invention. Do we have any real evidence how old it is? Is its reputation as the oldest language in Europe assumed merely because of its disconnect with IE?

Not to troll or anything, but maybe all the whole Basque angle ever was, was a giant red herring.

The Basques are a difficult issue.As for the language, it has very ancient features like the "ergative case", which is present in Europe only in the Georgian language. The ancient Hg G is most frequent among the South Caucasians therefore the Georgian language can also be considered as an old type of language.

I think we can rule out that Basque was a local invention, it should be more ancient in the area then IE. Now, the question is if Basque is the remnant of an LGM-language present in the Iberian refuge (Hg G, Hg I2a1-M26, and other ancient Hgs) or the language of arriving R1b people who were not yet Indo-Europeanized.The neolithic origin (E-M78) of Basque can be ruled out as it has no "Afro-Asiatic" features, and no relationship to other neolithic languages (Eteo-Cretan, Eteo-Cypriot, and probably Etruscan) was found.

No post-Celtic non-IE migration to the Basque region is documented, and already Roman sources tell them Vascones (B and V are the same in Spanish).

You can see here the Map of Iberia in 200 BC. Iberian language group is presumably connected to R-M167, Aquitanian (=Basque) to R-M153 and R-M65. Celtic should be R-U152 and R-L21 (however, we expect more U-152 as Celtiberians are connected to La Tene)

The Pre-Celtic group consists of many "ancient Hgs" as I already noted before, Hg BC*, F*, E3* was found in Northern Portugal in 1-1 men, Hg I2a1-M26 in 2 men and Hg G in 9 men out of a 109 men sample. Hg I2a1-M26 was also found 19% of Castilians of Central Spain (sample: 21 men)This is exactly the area of the "pre-Celtic Blue" above

Turdetanians are a likely remnant of the Neolithic Iberian population (in Iberia, E-M78 has the highest frequency in Andalusia: 7,7% in 258 men, and Los Millares is also found in this area)

... Iberian language group is presumably connected to R-M167.......... Celtic should be R-U152 and R-L21 (however, we expect more U-152 as Celtiberians are connected to La Tene)....

What is the reasoning behind connecting R-M167 to the Iberian language?My understanding is that the Celtiberians were more connected with the Hallstatt culture, not the La Tene. I don't think anyone is saying all Celtics were R-U152 or R-L21, are they? Perhaps you can make the case that Proto-Celtics were primarily R-P312.Does anyone have a % frequency chart for R-M167, R-M153, R-P312* by region in Spain?

Hi allI am the basque guy L-21+.I think my test is significant in that I can trace my paternal line back to the 14th century in the Basque Country, so any recent migration can be ruled out.For that same reason i think that more L-21+ can be found in the Basque Country in the large P-312 group of population that is not M-153 or M-157 and that still makes more than half the group and almost half the whole population.However, a very important point I would like to make is that Basque Country is not at all representative of Iberia as a whole, on the contrary Adams et alii (2008) shows that it is quite different and in turn almost identical to Gascony. So, I would not be surprised is L-21+ turns in significative numbers among Basques and still in very low numbers in iberia as a whole. IMO when talking about genetics, Baque Country and Gascony, as far as we know, should be treated as a separated province, differentr from Iberia and France. I am not talking here about the Franco-Cantabrian refuge theory here, though, rather from amore recent historical perspective, it would prove the late arrival of the Basques to modern Spanish Basque Country from the north of the Pyrenees, as archaeological findings strongly support.

What is the reasoning behind connecting R-M167 to the Iberian language?My understanding is that the Celtiberians were more connected with the Hallstatt culture, not the La Tene. I don't think anyone is saying all Celtics were R-U152 or R-L21, are they? Perhaps you can make the case that Proto-Celtics were primarily R-P312.

I connected M-167 because it seems to be the most frequent there, in Catalonia. Of course if P312 is proto-Celt then M-167 would be Celtiberian.With Hallstatt, you are right. It fits well into the hypothesis (see the origin of L21 topic) that Hallstatt-period migrations are connected with Q-Celtic and La Tene migrations with P-Celtic.

I think we can narrow the question of P-312 on two possible scenarios:

1. P-312 originated in the Southern Germany/Austria/Czech Republic area, more ir less the later territory of the Boii tribe. If this is true, thenP-312* and possibly M-153 and M-65 migrated with the Early Beakers. The language is a big problem in this case (Basque issue)L-21 should be the Q-Celtic Hallstatt migration to the Northwest (Gaelic)M-167 the Q-Celtic Hallstatt migration to the Southwest (Celtiberian)U-152 the P-Celtic La Tene migration to the West (Gaul, Brythonic)

2. P-312 originated around the Pyrennees/Massif Central (South France) and migrated throughout Western Europe as Beakers (P-312*)Basques are the remnant of the early P-312 population plus the new lineages M-65 and M-153 occuredM167 is then IberianL21 and U-152 occured in P-312* men who reached the Rhine valley and lived in Southern Germany. Then Indo-Europeans mixed with them from the East and proto-Celtic language was born. Then the above (p.1) migration of L-21 (Hallstatt, Q) and U-152 (La Tene, P) happened, this time the Celtiberian marker should be L-21...

It is not so easy to decide which one is valid. I think that would be an achievement if we can agree that one of these is valid and no one has a third scenario...

Hi allI am the basque guy L-21+.I think my test is significant in that I can trace my paternal line back to the 14th century in the Basque Country, so any recent migration can be ruled out.For that same reason i think that more L-21+ can be found in the Basque Country in the large P-312 group of population that is not M-153 or M-157 and that still makes more than half the group and almost half the whole population.However, a very important point I would like to make is that Basque Country is not at all representative of Iberia as a whole, on the contrary Adams et alii (2008) shows that it is quite different and in turn almost identical to Gascony. So, I would not be surprised is L-21+ turns in significative numbers among Basques and still in very low numbers in iberia as a whole. IMO when talking about genetics, Baque Country and Gascony, as far as we know, should be treated as a separated province, differentr from Iberia and France. I am not talking here about the Franco-Cantabrian refuge theory here, though, rather from amore recent historical perspective, it would prove the late arrival of the Basques to modern Spanish Basque Country from the north of the Pyrenees, as archaeological findings strongly support.

Thanks for joining in. We often hear of Irish folklore but I don't know the Basque story. Do the Basques have an "origin" legend? I know they are supposed to be from Gascony. Is there any history on how they got there?

It would be nice if a large sample of Basques was tested for all the R1b SNPs. Then we would know more. We have a few guys of Basque descent in the R-P312 and Subclades Project. Thus far I know of only one man of Basque ancestry who is L21+. The rest are L21-. As for Gascony, thus far that area has yet to produce even one L21+, although there are a few L21- guys there.

The fact that L21 has shown up in one man of Basque descent may not be all that significant. There are a couple of I1 guys in the Basque Project, too, after all, and a number of other men of various y haplogroups.

I think it is a distinct possibility that the original Basques came from Anatolia or even the Caucasus and were once mostly G2. Basque appears to have a very ancient connection to some of the Caucasian languages, like Georgian (which Jafety mentioned), in that it is an agglutinative language. There are still a few G2 guys in the Basque Project.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Basques have the 13910 T lactase persistence allele in excess of 93% according to a recent study (I'll have to find the name of the study again if anyone is interested). That allele is believed to have arisen less than 10k years ago out on the Eurasian steppe. The level of Basque lactase persistence is inconsistent with their supposed status as some sort of Paleolithic isolate.

I could be surprised, but I really don't expect much L21 among the Basques. Some may turn up elsewhere in Iberia, but I don't think there will be much of that either.

It would be nice if a large sample of Basques was tested for all the R1b SNPs. Then we would know more. We have a few guys of Basque descent in the R-P312 and Subclades Project. Thus far I know of only one man of Basque ancestry who is L21+. The rest are L21-. As for Gascony, thus far that area has yet to produce even one L21+, although there are a few L21- guys there.

The fact that L21 has shown up in one man of Basque descent may not be all that significant. There are a couple of I1 guys in the Basque Project, too, after all, and a number of other men of various y haplogroups.

I think it is a distinct possibility that the original Basques came from Anatolia or even the Caucasus and were once mostly G2. Basque appears to have a very ancient connection to some of the Caucasian languages, like Georgian (which Jafety mentioned), in that it is an agglutinative language. There are still a few G2 guys in the Basque Project.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Basques have the 13910 T lactase persistence allele in excess of 93% according to a recent study (I'll have to find the name of the study again if anyone is interested). That allele is believed to have arisen less than 10k years ago out on the Eurasian steppe. The level of Basque lactase persistence is inconsistent with their supposed status as some sort of Paleolithic isolate.

I could be surprised, but I really don't expect much L21 among the Basques. Some may turn up elsewhere in Iberia, but I don't think there will be much of that either.

So far, I think I am the first person of Basque ancestry to have tested for L-21+ at all.The Basque project is badly needing a dep reorganization, there are plenty of non Basque surnames included, and only 13 people out of 81 that can trace their origins to some place in the Basque Country.About the G Haplogroup, 6 people are positive for G, 3 of them have no Basque surnames (Arean, Trebs and Navarro), 2 others don´t show their origin (Mendoza and Aguirre) while Borinaga stated that he could link his family to an old Byzantine family.The link between Georgian and Basque is discarded by most scientifics and in any case is not proven, the ergative is shared by other languages like ancient Maya, who I guess no one has ever linked to Georgian.I agree with the LP allele, I know the study by Sabri Enattah et alii (I guess that is the one you talked about). I myself have that LP (I drink every day and I love it), but that is not surprising, my family has been growing cattle for at least the last 600 years, it would be odd not to have that adaptation, but in any case I wasn´t arguing for the Paleolithic origen, on the contrary, my point was a very recent arrival to the Spanish Basque Country from north of the Pyrenees. As for the ultimate origin pof Basque/Aquitanians, you can only guess.I could be surprised, but I expect a reasonable ammount of L21+ among Basques and in Gascony.

Yes, if Basque was not the R-P312 language then it could only be the LGM language of G2, I-M26 and other ancient groups. But the problem is still there that how could their preserve the language when 85-90% of the males are R1b1b2? In other place a minority elite was enough to replace the language or at least "creolize" it. Not an easy case to solve...

Yes, if Basque was not the R-P312 language then it could only be the LGM language of G2, I-M26 and other ancient groups. But the problem is still there that how could their preserve the language when 85-90% of the males are R1b1b2? In other place a minority elite was enough to replace the language or at least "creolize" it. Not an easy case to solve...

The answer to that question could be the Basques' ancient matrilocal marriage tradition, in which the husband and his bride lived with the bride's family. Thus the male would be forced to use the bride's language, yet it would be his y dna that got passed along to his male children.

The answer to that question could be the Basques' ancient matrilocal marriage tradition, in which the husband and his bride lived with the bride's family. Thus the male would be forced to use the bride's language, yet it would be his y dna that got passed along to his male children.

Matrilocal marriage among Basques is just a myth without any firm evidence, in fact there is much more solid evidence for matrilocal traditions among Celtic peoples of Northern Spain, especially for the Gallaecii and their warrior wives.In any case, if a people has a matrilocal tradition their Y-DNA does not disappear, the men of that people also get married and have children.

... In any case, if a people has a matrilocal tradition their Y-DNA does not disappear, the men of that people also get married and have children.

I understand you challenge if the Basques had a matrilocal heritage. I don't know.

However, your statement that the "Y-DNA does not disappear" is irrelevant. The point of the other side of the argument is not there is no Y-DNA continuity or expansion, but that in a matrilocal society the men would likely have to learn their wives' language. This then would explain why a man that might appear to have Indo-European ancestral heritage, would have children who speak a non-IE language (like what the Basques speak). If ancient Basque predecessor society was matrilocal then that explains why don't don't speak an IE language today even though the men came from the homeland of PIE, likely the Pontic Steppes.

I think the solution for the Basque case -- if we assume P312 and U106 had their homeland in the Rhine area -- should be that Basque P-312 lineages spread from the homeland before the others, and the other P312 lineages got the IE language later. This is very possible, whether you accept Kurganization (R1a1) theory or the metal age spread from Anatolia (J2) for the origin of IE languages.

I think the solution for the Basque case -- if we assume P312 and U106 had their homeland in the Rhine area -- should be that Basque P-312 lineages spread from the homeland before the others, and the other P312 lineages got the IE language later. This is very possible, whether you accept Kurganization (R1a1) theory or the metal age spread from Anatolia (J2) for the origin of IE languages.

I don't accept either of those. I think the Basques became mostly R1b1b2 through admixture, but even if they didn't, just because a small minority society speaks a non-IE language does not justify generalizing from it to the entire early R1b1b2 population.

I have never understood the idea that because the Basques are non-IE speakers ALL of Western Europe must have once been as they are. That makes no sense to me unless one accepts first the baseless assumption that the Basques represent the original Paleolithic population of Western Europe, which they clearly do NOT.

I ask you, which of the following makes more sense, that the vast majority of Europe was once as the Basques are but underwent an incredible major shift in language and culture via some sort of mysterious process of "osmosis", or that a small minority population became over the millennia like most of its neighbors in its y dna via admixture?

And even if the Basques always were mostly R1b1b2 (which I doubt), what justifies the idea that the rest of Europe's R1b1b2s once spoke a Vasconic language?

There are millions of R1as who speak Turkic languages. Perhaps all R1as were once Turkic speaking but became Indo-Europeanized via contact with the West? (I don't believe that, but it makes as much as or more sense than the Basque idea.)

And what exactly is behind the R1a-is-uniquely-Indo-European idea? I'll tell you what. Spencer Wells and some other geneticists found a lot of R1a in Eastern Europe and in India and thought, "Wow! India and part of Europe! Must be kurgans a la Gimbutas!"

What they overlooked was the overwhelmingly Indo-European zone that is Western Europe. Not a whole lot of R1a there, and what is there can be attributed to the vikings in Britain and to the Slavonic migrations of the 6th and 7th centuries AD. So they had to invent a mysterious process of Indo-Europeanization for Western Europe, but India got Indo-Europeanized by actual R1a kurgans!

Red flags should have been popping up, but if the "experts" say it, most folks fall in line. Nothing authorizes like authority, I guess.

The answer is simpler, I think. Look at the distribution of R1. It is remarkably like the distribution of Indo-European languages. Then look at the major division of Indo-European languages into Centum (western) and Satem (eastern). Why is it that split mirrors the division in R1 between R1b and R1a?

And if anyone spoke IE first, why shouldn't it have been the R1bs, since Centum is believed to have been the older and original form of Indo-European, and R1b, as much as R1a, is thought to have arisen in Central or Western Asia?

It is also possible that Renfrew was at least partly right, and IE was first spread by farmers - R1b1b2s probably - out of Anatolia, who spread Indo-European to their R1a neighbors, who then spread it to the East.

And even if the Basques always were mostly R1b1b2 (which I doubt), what justifies the idea that the rest of Europe's R1b1b2s once spoke a Vasconic language?

There are millions of R1as who speak Turkic languages. Perhaps all R1as were once Turkic speaking but became Indo-Europeanized via contact with the West? (I don't believe that, but it makes as much as or more sense than the Basque idea.)

It is also possible that Renfrew was at least partly right, and IE was first spread by farmers - R1b1b2s probably - out of Anatolia, who spread Indo-European to their R1a neighbors, who then spread it to the East.

I do not accept the R1a theory either...

My point: 1. Basque uses a number system based on 20s. Most Indo-European languages do not. However, Celts do and French retained this archaic feature (see 80 = quatre-vingt = four times twenty or 70 = soixante-dix = sixty-ten). Numerals are very basic concept in a language, which changes rarely. Think on that if you learn a foreign language very well and even does not have to "translate" words in your head when speaking, you still would count in your mother tongue.

2. We do not know any IE language before the Celts in Western Europe. Celtic language spread is more-or-less safely put into the Hallstatt-La Tene period (1200 BC on).R1b1b2 is way older than that date, I also favour the neolithic theory, as Linear Pottery reached the Rhine Valley around the time of MRCA of U-106 and P312.

3. R1a cant be proto-IE. If R1a was Proto-Slavic then it would be quite nonsense that many Finn-Permian peoples have more than 50% R1a and still speak non-Slavic language (Finnish contra Slavic language border was much southern around 1000 AD than today, even the Moscow area was inhabited by Finn-Permians). Therefore R1a can be linked with Uralic migration and not IE. Of course, later spread of R1a happened with Indo-Europeans when these nomadic/hunter-gatherer peoples were affected by agriculturalist IE speakers: this happened in Ukraine (Slavs) and in the Afghanistan area (Indo-Aryans).

Thus my point is that R1b1b2 came from Anatolia/Levant area together with E-M78 people to the Balkans. Our R1b1b2 ancestors reached the upper Danube-middle Rhine area and became more and more popolous while spoke a language stg like Basque (Karp means mountain in Basque as far as I know - compare Carpathian mtns.) In the Beaker age they started to migrate to W.Europe. Then IE metal workers introduced late Bronze/early Iron age (J2 connection) from the Balkans somewhere in the Boii area (Czech R., Austria, Bavaria - Hallstatt culture). From the J2 metallists (speaking Thracian or Illyrian) and local R1b1b2 agriculturalists, the Celtic language was born. The other is known already.

My point: 1. Basque uses a number system based on 20s. Most Indo-European languages do not. However, Celts do and French retained this archaic feature (see 80 = quatre-vingt = four times twenty or 70 = soixante-dix = sixty-ten). Numerals are very basic concept in a language, which changes rarely. Think on that if you learn a foreign language very well and even does not have to "translate" words in your head when speaking, you still would count in your mother tongue.

Where did you hear that? I have read that the Celts used a decimal system. Besides, even if true, that is scant evidence - very scant - on which to base some sort of idea that the Celts are really clandestine Basques. Twenty is two times ten. Are you saying the notion of multiplying two times ten and then using multiples of twenty never occurred to anyone except the Basques? You've convinced me!

Anyway, that has little bearing on y dna. No one, I think, is denying that there were people in Europe before the R1b1b2s/Indo-Europeans. One could learn and use his mother's counting system as easily as (perhaps more easily than) his father's.

2. We do not know any IE language before the Celts in Western Europe. Celtic language spread is more-or-less safely put into the Hallstatt-La Tene period (1200 BC on).R1b1b2 is way older than that date, I also favour the neolithic theory, as Linear Pottery reached the Rhine Valley around the time of MRCA of U-106 and P312.

We certainly have no reason to believe Western Europe spoke a Vasconic language before the Celts arrived. In fact, there is all sorts of evidence of non-Vasconic languages in W. Europe that were also not Celtic.

3. R1a cant be proto-IE. If R1a was Proto-Slavic then it would be quite nonsense that many Finn-Permian peoples have more than 50% R1a and still speak non-Slavic language (Finnish contra Slavic language border was much southern around 1000 AD than today, even the Moscow area was inhabited by Finn-Permians). Therefore R1a can be linked with Uralic migration and not IE. Of course, later spread of R1a happened with Indo-Europeans when these nomadic/hunter-gatherer peoples were affected by agriculturalist IE speakers: this happened in Ukraine (Slavs) and in the Afghanistan area (Indo-Aryans).

Thus my point is that R1b1b2 came from Anatolia/Levant area together with E-M78 people to the Balkans. Our R1b1b2 ancestors reached the upper Danube-middle Rhine area and became more and more popolous while spoke a language stg like Basque (Karp means mountain in Basque as far as I know - compare Carpathian mtns.) In the Beaker age they started to migrate to W.Europe. Then IE metal workers introduced late Bronze/early Iron age (J2 connection) from the Balkans somewhere in the Boii area (Czech R., Austria, Bavaria - Hallstatt culture). From the J2 metallists (speaking Thracian or Illyrian) and local R1b1b2 agriculturalists, the Celtic language was born. The other is known already.

I think R1b1b2 came earlier than E-M78 and pushed farther north and west. E-M78 came later, which explains why it didn't spread as far or make as much of an impact. I also do not believe that either E-M78 or J was Indo-European speaking, not at first anyway.

Linking karp (if in fact that does mean "mountain" in Vasconic) to the Carpathians sounds pretty shaky to me. One wonders how the Pyrenees missed out on that name, and I know at least in Russian the Carpathians are called the Karpat, with the stress on the second syllable.

There is no real evidence that Vasconic was once as widespread as you seem to think.

The weakest link in what you wrote is the idea that J2 spread Indo-European. I see absolutely nothing to commend that idea. The bulk of the world's J2s speak Afro-Asiatic languages (especially Semitic). While they were at it they also invented Indo-European? And they speak mainly Semitic languages in their putative homeland and heartland. The distribution of IE languages does not correspond to the distribution of J2 the way it does to the distribution of R1.

Your ideas are worth considering, but I think there are too many problems with them.

Here is what Dr. John Koch says about the Celtic languages in his book, Atlas for Celtic Studies (page 6):

Quote

The Ancient Celtic languages may be termed 'Old Indo-European' languages in that they generally seem to have preserved the distribution of vowels and consonants and the inflexional categories of the reconstructed Indo-European proto-language. In this, they broadly resemble Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, and other attested Indo-European languages of the ancient period.

I searched the book in vain for any mention of a Vasconic influence on the Celtic languages, and I don't remember ever reading of such an influence in any of the other books I've read on the Celts.

First of all, I want to stress that I dont say that all Neolithic farmers in the Danube valley/Balkans were Basques or spoke the Basque language as we know it. I think there was a language group spreading from the Rhine to Albania/Bulgaria where Neolithic farmers spoke a language whose closest remnant today (not the same, as it was influenced by Mesolithic peoples of the Pyrennees area) is Basque and we can find traces of it in the Celtic languages and also Albanian as you pointed out in relation with Karpe/Carpathians. One of this features is the counting system based on 20s. Proto-IE was decimal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_numerals which means that 20 = "two-tens" or 11 = one on ten or ten plus one etc. However, Celtic languages, French and also Albanian has a number system based on 20s or at least some traces of this (Germanic languages have 12-counting system, eleven and twelwe + elf,zwölf in German are the evidence: that is why we use "dozen" and 13 is an "unlucky" number)See it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_numerals10 = deg; 20 = ugain (not dau ddeg, which is in Patagonian Welsh as this page describe it) and 40 = deugain etc. There are traces of this vigesimal counting system in Albanian: 10 = dhjete; 20 = njezet; 40 = dyzet

I think it would be very interesting to collect more data on those Celtic and Albanian words which seem to be related to Basque words of the similar meaning.

With the later arrival of E-M78 you are probably right, I cant decide if they came at the same time or differently. In NW Wales, E-M78 was found 37% in a town, which is very interesting.